On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 11:31 +0200, david blanchard wrote: > The meeting was mostly dedicated to the legal risk attached to HackIt; and > at the end of the meeting we discussed a few other topics; here are the > minutes :
Thanks! I've put it on the wiki, with a few slight modifications: http://community.hackit.cx/wiki/Legal_advice_-_Olivier_Hugot_201007 > o On this topic, we are comparable to Adblock. It would be interesting > to know if some company has sued AdBlock, I could not find anything on my > side. The two only mentions I could find were those ones: - http://adblockplus.org/blog/interview-responses-a-summary (An interview of the Adblock author, mentioning a dropped lawsuit in Hungary) - http://www.zdnet.com/news/web-ad-blocking-may-not-be-entirely-legal/164437 Rumors and speculations on ZDnet > * The proxy solution keeps the risks of the plugin, and on top of > that adds the fact that some traffic is removed from the websites that are > seen through our game. Not sure about the second part of your sentence - in both cases the page is downloaded, every time, from the originating website. It's just that in one case it goes through our server, in the other not. > * The second one would be the IP (use of web sites for playing, thus > violating the terms of use) That risk is on the player. The developers/editors of Hackit are not the ones infringing this, and websites won't sue their visitors... > * If we are informed of a user that damages the image of a company, we > should react quickly. The best move might not be to remove the site from the > game (creates a unwanted precedent) but to remove the offensive content > quickly. Yup - btw, I think we'll need some kind of policy or review process on that. The content actually has to be offensive, we probably don't want to remove content upon reception of any request... > * Data should be under double licence, creative commons but also AGPL. > Xav please elaborate on that, I did not follow very well. The way I understand it, the AGPL and CC licenses are incompatible (cf http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ), and it's hard to consider the data and the code as completely separated entities. To avoid issues, dual licensing allows to chose which license to apply on a given case, which means that the AGPL would apply when it is seen as associated to the code, but it could still be mixed with creative commons work. The only issue I see with this is the fact that to use external work that is released under a CC license, we would have to obtain the authorization from the author to dual-license it. To check with Olivier. Btw, we still need to give a list of the things we want Olivier to give a quote on. Here is what I have in the legal todo-list - do you have anything else to add, or modify? * Define process for licensing of user/freelance/employee contributions (ideas, code, graphic assets, sounds, texts, level design data...) and copyright assignment * Write contract for freelance * Evaluate risks related to the legal status of volunteers * Evaluate risks related to the gameplay (hacking on top of existing websites) * Evaluate risks related to re-using gameplay from existing genres of games * Logo / trademark registration & usage policy (NA & Europe) * Write ToS (service & sales), privacy policy, CNIL registration * Company setup, writing statutes and shareholder agreement Xavier. _______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
